is pete sampras the greatest

First topic message reminder :

rafa and roger would have less grand slams if they were playing sampras in his prime.

Well if i'm giving a free copy I will. I'm not too interested in collecting autobiography of sport sta

luciusmann wrote:Namely, it's to do with belief (& confidence). Fair enough Sampras may have been injured (although he still got to the quarters), but when Fed was playing a few years later, knowing he's got more experience playing at the top level, that victory helps to beat the top players he was then facing in those rounds. Again, I won't deny this is conjecture, but as I said, it will remain so until he releases an autobiography!

But a couple of years later, sampras wasn't around....

2004 Rotterdam: Henman won 6-3, 7-6
2003 ATP Masters Paris Carpet: Henman won 7-6, 6-1
2001 Basel Indoors Carpet: Henman won: 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 (5 set match)
2001 Wimbledon: Henman won 7-5, 7-6, 2-6, 7-6
2000 Vienna Indoors: Henman won 2-6, 7-6, 6-3
1999 Basel Indoors Carpet:Henman won 6-3, 7-5

Dear o Dear! No shame. You pick up 6 matches in history of which 5 of them were way before Federer's peak and you conclude that Federer woudl have struggled on carpet?!!!

Just take the 2001 Wimbledon match. Fed v Henman and a full stadium against him, yet he loses narrowly 2 sets down to tiebreaks....despite being way below his peak and most importantly probably under excitement of having beaten the toughest opponent of the tournament. That was schoolboy error for Federer not to have given Tim his due respect but hey.....he was a schoolboy anyway at that time.

What can you draw of the Paris masters? did you see that match? Federer is teh first to have set point with the easiest FH to make as Henman is outside the trameline but misses it.....again well below Fed's best time.

I am still looking for an interview of a player saying that Wimby 2001 was slow...yet you use it in your stats to prove that Fed would struggle on fast surface?

No shame really!

Tenez wrote:

I am still looking for an interview of a player saying that Wimby 2001 was slow...yet you use it in your stats to prove that Fed would struggle on fast surface?

Ive given you clippings from 95-00 to indicate progressive slowness. As they exist then obviously 2001 was also slowed - unless you are saying 2001 was much quicker than 2000, in which case please provide your own evidence.

Some of them are really good SA, Agassi released a great one, very entertaining and amusing. I'll send you a copy (when Fed releases his) SA, what language would you prefer it in (as you said English is not your first language)?!

How do you mean Tom? I'm not suggesting Sampras was not injured in 2001.

And i'll be suprised if 2 years later Federer is beaming with confidence from beating Sampras to beat Philippoussis.

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:

I am still looking for an interview of a player saying that Wimby 2001 was slow...yet you use it in your stats to prove that Fed would struggle on fast surface?

Ive given you clippings from 95-00 to indicate progressive slowness. As they exist then obviously 2001 was also slowed - unless you are saying 2001 was much quicker than 2000, in which case please provide your own evidence.

No you haven't. Till 2001 wimbledon was a serve fest!!!!! only posters with an agenda would bring slowness in 2001 when no player mentions it. now google interview wimbledon 2002 and check about all of them saying it's dead slow.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.....as usual!

Well SA, confidence is built, I don't think Fed would simply be looking @ his sole victory against Sampras as his only thing which built his confidence (I'm just saying it was a significant boost). It would have aided more his belief and belief aids crucially confidence but more importantly motivation.

Talking about Paris masters. It is the fastest court tournament on tour. Has Federer won it?

Simple_Analyst wrote:And i'll be suprised if 2 years later Federer is beaming with confidence from beating Sampras to beat Philippoussis.

I was trying to say that it seems a little loose to link the Sampras loss to Federer believing he can win 2 years later when Sampras had since retired.

I think, like all greats, Federer's quality would have taken him to the top regardless of 2001. he was already widely tipped as a future star years before then if you kept up to date with newcomers at the time. The media found it a big shock, but i'm not sure it was really a 'shock' given the year Sampras was having.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Talking about Paris masters. It is the fastest court tournament on tour. Has Federer won it?

It is not the faastest and it's still not the fastest. Federer has won 5 YE masters where he beat the best players right and left on fast surfaces like Shanghai.

So you see you've been confusing yourself all along Luciusmann. It was a confidence boost just not 2 years after as you said. bEst to leave it.

Tenez wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:

I am still looking for an interview of a player saying that Wimby 2001 was slow...yet you use it in your stats to prove that Fed would struggle on fast surface?

Ive given you clippings from 95-00 to indicate progressive slowness. As they exist then obviously 2001 was also slowed - unless you are saying 2001 was much quicker than 2000, in which case please provide your own evidence.

No you haven't. Till 2001 wimbledon was a serve fest!!!!! only posters with an agenda would bring slowness in 2001 when no player mentions it. now google interview wimbledon 2002 and check about all of them saying it's dead slow.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.....as usual!

This isn't punch and judy tenez.
Quite simply if several players were quoted talking about slowed balls and courts as i have shown, it seems to me now a totally void argument to suggest 2001 was fast grass as always.

do you think Bjorkman had an agenda when he said this in 2001:
“We’re in a situation that if we don’t take [the decline of serve and volley] seriously, we might be in a position in two or three years’ time when we’ll have extremely boring tennis with guys just standing on the baseline. If that happens I think tennis will die quite a lot”

Er, where on earth do you come up with that SA? There's nothing confusing in what I've written, again, something is being lost in translation here, rather like how you weren't able to grasp the definition of the word 'rivalry' SA, if I were you, I'd leave it. Or, perhaps use an English dictionary so you are not misunderstanding what I've written (which is fine if English is your third language).

Lol Tenez about to lose an argument once again. Paris infact has a 45 or 47 pace rating. The highest on tour. dO well to read this
sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=6150794

Phone Federer and argue with him lol. PARIS masters is the fastest court on tour.

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Talking about Paris masters. It is the fastest court tournament on tour. Has Federer won it?

It is not the faastest and it's still not the fastest. Federer has won 5 YE masters where he beat the best players right and left on fast surfaces like Shanghai.

As paris is indoor, is very likely to be faster than shanghai.........

Found this quote and article: Federer disagrees with you tenez

"Paris is the fastest hardcourt on tour by quite a margin, it is also the only HC tournament considered fast according to the ITF court pace ratings. It's court pace rating last tournament was 45, 45pts. and above is considered fast."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=6150794
""Shanghai was brutally slow, Toronto was very slow and Miami and Indian Wells have been slowed drastically," says Federer"

Tom_____ wrote:do you think Bjorkman had an agenda when he said this in 2001:
“We’re in a situation that if we don’t take [the decline of serve and volley] seriously, we might be in a position in two or three years’ time when we’ll have extremely boring tennis with guys just standing on the baseline. If that happens I think tennis will die quite a lot”

No. Bjorkman had no agenda but you have as you are taking his words out of context. He did not say regarding Wimbledon 2001 but the fact that the ITF decided in 2001 to introduce bigger balls the following year....which they did!

Keep trying!

Lol whatever Luciusmann. I'm sure should Murray win USO this year, it will be due to the confidence of beating Nadal 08. Funny.

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Talking about Paris masters. It is the fastest court tournament on tour. Has Federer won it?

It is not the faastest and it's still not the fastest. Federer has won 5 YE masters where he beat the best players right and left on fast surfaces like Shanghai.

As paris is indoor, is very likely to be faster than shanghai.........

Found this quote and article: Federer disagrees with you tenez

"Paris is the fastest hardcourt on tour by quite a margin, it is also the only HC tournament considered fast according to the ITF court pace ratings. It's court pace rating last tournament was 45, 45pts. and above is considered fast."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=6150794
""Shanghai was brutally slow, Toronto was very slow and Miami and Indian Wells have been slowed drastically," says Federer"

Last year it was fast....but it was slow the previous years as testified by Federer himself. And I don't think it was as fast as Rotterdham anyway but Fed doesn;t play there anymore.

Calm down SA, I wasn't disrespecting you, just saying something was lost in translation. Er, Murray has to get through Fed or Djoko before he takes the USO, Nadal isn't the only good hard court player, there are others. As I also said (repeating things is boring), it varies for every player, what's true for Fed may not be true for Murray.

Tenez wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:do you think Bjorkman had an agenda when he said this in 2001:
“We’re in a situation that if we don’t take [the decline of serve and volley] seriously, we might be in a position in two or three years’ time when we’ll have extremely boring tennis with guys just standing on the baseline. If that happens I think tennis will die quite a lot”

No. Bjorkman had no agenda but you have as you are taking his words out of context. He did not say regarding Wimbledon 2001 but the fact that the ITF decided in 2001 to introduce bigger balls the following year....which they did!

Keep trying!

I didn't say he was referring to wimbledon - you simply misread it. However he is referring to a present occurrence in the decline of serve and volley - this implies serve and volley was declining prior to 2001 when the new balls were being introduced - he wasn't saying, 'we need to be careful we don't kill off S and V', he was referring to a present concern.

Tenez for all his gloating knows absolutely little. That's what happens when you spend so much time deluding yourself.

I shouldn´t But I will

Lol now he is mentioning Rotterdam. I thought you said Paris was not fastest at any time and Shanghai was fast which Federer disagrees.

Tenez wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Talking about Paris masters. It is the fastest court tournament on tour. Has Federer won it?

It is not the faastest and it's still not the fastest. Federer has won 5 YE masters where he beat the best players right and left on fast surfaces like Shanghai.

As paris is indoor, is very likely to be faster than shanghai.........

Found this quote and article: Federer disagrees with you tenez

"Paris is the fastest hardcourt on tour by quite a margin, it is also the only HC tournament considered fast according to the ITF court pace ratings. It's court pace rating last tournament was 45, 45pts. and above is considered fast."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=6150794
""Shanghai was brutally slow, Toronto was very slow and Miami and Indian Wells have been slowed drastically," says Federer"

Last year it was fast....but it was slow the previous years as testified by Federer himself. And I don't think it was as fast as Rotterdham anyway but Fed doesn;t play there anymore.

Did you know Paris was a clay tournament and hence slow and then they rebuilt it indoors with a fast pace court pace to suit players like llodra and monfils? - it has not been slow. If you think it has please post the speed rating prior to last year to back up your claim. Also could you show where Federer has 'testified' or at least mentioned that it has increased in speed?

Tom you've put Tenez in a corner but i'll help him out. The court the year before had a CPR of 38 and was increased to 45. But even at 38, been indoor, it was comfortably the fastest court. Suprisingly with all the talk of slowing down of courts, the USO last year was the fastest it has been for years with a CPR of 40 yet who won? The player who apparently wouldn't have won on faster surfaces. Cincy and Rotterdam have similar rating.

[quote="Tom_____"]

Tenez wrote: I didn't say he was referring to wimbledon - you simply misread it.

If I ask Lydian to provide a quote of a player saying that Wimby 2001 was slow and that you come up with one one...we are entitled to believe Jonas was referring to Wimbledon. I don't care about the other surfaces or other wimbies. You have tried to misled by throwing a quote out of context which has not anything to do with Wimby 2001.

But that is so typical of you and Lydian....constantly moving the goal posts!

[quote="Tenez"]

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote: I didn't say he was referring to wimbledon - you simply misread it.

If I ask Lydian to provide a quote of a player saying that Wimby 2001 was slow and that you come up with one one...we are entitled to believe Jonas was referring to Wimbledon. I don't care about the other surfaces or other wimbies. You have tried to misled by throwing a quote out of context which has not anything to do with Wimby 2001.

But that is so typical of you and Lydian....constantly moving the goal posts!

"only posters with an agenda would bring slowness in 2001 when no player mentions it"

Mentioning Bjorkman was in response to you posturing about people having agendas who mentioned slowness - it was not linked to the three other quotes i pull off the net about slowness form 95-00. Note i asked you if Bjorkman had an agenda.

However interesting to note that it was January 2001 was when Bjorkamn made the comments - i.e before Wimbledon 2001.

"Q. There's a lot of talk that the serve-and-volley game is going to disappear altogether. Do you feel that's true?

JONAS BJORKMAN: It's very true. Since it's been a lot of complaints over courts and surfaces, it's too quick, they've been changing it to the opposite - making it too slow. And I think we are in a situation that we might, if we don't take it serious, we might be in a position in two, three years we'll have extremely boring tennis with just guys standing on the baseline, and I think that will die out the tennis quite a lot. We need to keep those guys who play very good at the net, like Pat Rafter for example, we need to have guys like that around. And if you see the young guys playing at the moment, it's not too many serve-and-volleyers coming up. So it's a very serious point we need to take care of."

Another interesting quote re. 2001:
"Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft"

Do you remember the Final being on a Monday?

But honestly does it matter if the courts were slowed 2000 or 2001? What matters is by 2003 when the courts at Wimbledon was evidently slowed down was only when Federer won his 1st Wimbledon. He is in the same boat as Nadal to benefit from this.

Sampras finished his career with 14 Major singles titles, 6 consecutive years as the year-end No 1 ranked player.

286 weeks at the No 1 Ranked singles player, 7 times the Wimbledon Champion; he won 64 singles titles, and 2 doubles titles.

At the end of his playing career, as the most successful Major Singles player, he was by most, accorded the "Greatest of all Time."

The largest "hole" in his repetoire, was that he had not only never won, the French Open, but that he hadn't even made the final. His record was 1 semifinal (1996 - lost to Kafelnikov in semis), and three consecutive quarterfinals (1992 - 1994).

What catches the attention is not that he lost, but to whom, and how we lost. The list of his conquerors is not filled with lists of greatly accomplished clay court players; I feel that he never really believed that he could win the French Open. The fact that he didn't takes NOTHING away from all the titles, including Majors, that he did win.

Now that we have Federere, who has eclisped Sampras's then record 14 Maror singles titles, with 16 of his own, INCLUDING the French Open - it doesn't seem that he can be afforded the title of "Best player of all Time."

Federer, has won the French Open, but also made 4 other finals, losing each time, to Nadal, either the Best, or Equal Best ever, Clay court Player. Roger was clearly the 2nd best clay court player at this time, just beaten by Nadal at the French.

Grass court, best ever, he is, for me still in contention at this point - 7 Wimbledons beats 6 Wimbledons, it's simple math. One may counter by pointing out Federer's greater number of "outside of Wimbledon" grasscourt titles, but when comparing World Class Greatness on the surface, Wimbledon IS the yardstick.

So at this point, I would say Sampras is not the "best player ever," "most successful player at the Majors," but he has my nod today, as being the Greatest Grass Court player.

When the "Greatest" discussion comes up, there are quite a few factors, and the more one goes, or tries to go, into the finer details, the reasoning can become quite "compulsive" and more related to a specific contributor's opinion, than that, which is supported by raw facts.

There was quite some time ago, an article that looked at "greatest," in terms of a match, season, and 5 year period. This was interesting as those specific parametres, do take out certain considerations, as opposed to the "bigger"question.

Best Grass Court player ever - One Match - for me it's John McEnroe, hands down. But it's such a particular "question," that holds little relevancy to the large view of the game.

For now, 7 is higher than 6, so Sampras gets my nod - but it's always interesting to hear other people's opinions, when they are well written, balanced by factual knowledge and results from the game (rather than a personal bias only).

How about we wait two weeks, and then see if we have 2 players in the modern Era who have won the Wimbledon Singles? Then we can indulge in the nitty gritty, with it being a bit more relative.

Anyway, it may be we have a first time Wimbledon Champion or a 3 time Champion come the end of the Men's Final - who knows? No-one! That's what makes it all the more pleasureable anticipating and awaiting each round's results.

I have a feeling that (slightly off header comment, acknowledged) there are going to be some VERY interesting things happening in the women's draw this year! So many options, ad possibliities. The Men's looks at present like a four man show, or at least, a four champion possibility, again, no one can be sure.

We have an entrant ranked 895 in the world, that could well cuase
some "damage" to the draw!

Mouth watering....all of it...

Uugh! Didnt preview first, so apologies for all the typos folks!

Great post ylopo, we will have to wait to see in 2 weeks time. Should Federer win, 7 titles in 9 year period will have him on par with Sampras. Failure to win 6 titles in 9 years unfortunately wouldn't strengthen his position.

I second that, good post yloponomo. Yup, we'll find out in two weeks, you mean 7 titles in 9 years instead of 6 (he already has 6)?

Failure to win will still 6 in 9 years but to me it's irrelevant how long a player takes to win a haul of titles, what is important is the total at the end of a career.

Federer is by far he best player on grass. end of.

Tenez wrote:Federer is by far he best player on grass. end of.

In YOUR opinion

I'd just like to interject on this thread to congratulate you all in not descending to personal insults. However, it gladdens my heart to see certain people disregard Pistol Pete with little thought for those who do see him as an all-time great and put him down so simply. I will be bookmarking this thread and certain posters so that next time they complain about posts that are so negative towards Nadal/Murray etc. I can point them at this thread and their comments to show how hypocritical they are

Tenez - a simple question for you:

Did they change the courts from the previously quicker 70% Rye/30% Fescue blend to the slower 100% Rye grass for the 2001 Championships, or not?

Davie wrote:I'd just like to interject on this thread to congratulate you all in not descending to personal insults. However, it gladdens my heart to see certain people disregard Pistol Pete with little thought for those who do see him as an all-time great and put him down so simply. I will be bookmarking this thread and certain posters so that next time they complain about posts that are so negative towards Nadal/Murray etc. I can point them at this thread and their comments to show how hypocritical they are

Wow one thread and you will declare people complaining about anti Nadal and Murray threads hypocritical?

You do realise that is the biggest load of carp I have heard? We are really talking Straw Issues!!

Amazing

lydian wrote:Tenez - a simple question for you:

Did they change the courts from the previously quicker 70% Rye/30% Fescue blend to the slower 100% Rye grass for the 2001 Championships, or not?

You say that the fescue/reye grass was quicker than 100% reye grass but it's not significantly faster at all. That's were you get it wrong. Yes they adopted 100% reye grass in 2001 not to slow the courts but to actually allow the grass to stay longer in teh second week. And what they did in the following years was to increase teh clay percentage in teh loam to make the courts harder and bouncier but that happened after 2003!

100% reye grass is FASTER than no grass at all which was the problem with the too fragile previous mixture when we got to the second week. It's still a problem actually cause the courts get really slower in the second week. But that you don't want to admit it.

I have yet to read an interview from a player saying 2001 wimbledon was slower than previous.....And that was your main point you obviously cannot prove.

And if 2001 was 100% reye and no player complain about the slow courts, how come that in 2002, still 100% reye grass everybody complains about the slow conds? Weird isn't it? SOmething other than the grass must have played its part. the balls maybe?

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:Tenez - a simple question for you:

Did they change the courts from the previously quicker 70% Rye/30% Fescue blend to the slower 100% Rye grass for the 2001 Championships, or not?

You say that the fescue/reye grass was quicker than 100% reye grass but it's not significantly faster at all. That's were you get it wrong. Yes they adopted 100% reye grass in 2001 not to slow the courts but to actually allow the grass to stay longer in teh second week. And what they did in the following years was to increase teh clay percentage in teh loam to make the courts harder and bouncier but that happened after 2003!

100% reye grass is FASTER than no grass at all which was the problem with the too fragile previous mixture when we got to the second week. It's still a problem actually cause the courts get really slower in the second week. But that you don't want to admit it.

I have yet to read an interview from a player saying 2001 wimbledon was slower than previous.....And that was your main point you obviously cannot prove.

And if 2001 was 100% reye and no player complain about the slow courts, how come that in 2002, still 100% reye grass everybody complains about the slow conds? Weird isn't it? SOmething other than the grass must have played its part. the balls maybe?

""In 2001, Wimbledon tore out all its courts and planted a new variety of groundcover. The new grass was 100% perennial rye; the old courts had been a mix of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. The new lawn was more durable, and allowed Wimbledon's groundsmen to keep the soil underneath drier and firmer. A firmer surface causes the ball to bounce higher. A high bounce is anathema to the serve-and-volley player, who relies on approach shots skidding low through the court. What's more, rye, unlike fescue, grows in tufts that stand straight up; these tufts slow a tennis ball down as it lands.

Ivanisevic and Rafter were able to blast their way through the new grass because an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft""

http://time.com/time/magazine/articl...815724,00.html

Remember the Monday final?? due to rain??? have we been over this before???

NOW DID THE NEW BALLS KILL SERVE AND VOLLEY

Below is a article from CNN sport on the 25th March 2011

(CNN) -- They are tall, powerful and capable of serving a tennis ball at over 150 mph (241 kph). They are the rocket men of tennis, and they're getting faster.

Leading the race is Ivo Karlovic, the 6 ft 10 in Croatian they call the "King of Aces," who was clocked at 156 mph (251 kph) during a Davis Cup tie in Zagreb last month.

The 32-year-old's world record is unlikely to go unchallenged for long. Andy Roddick has twice hit the 155 mph (249 kph) mark, and 20-year-old Canadian Milos Raonic is already firing at 153 mph (246 kph).

But as serves continue to get faster, tennis is staring down a difficult problem -- what to do when rallies become a rarity, and every other point is an ace.

"Players like Raonic and Karlovic combine great technique with height and long arms to generate racket speed," said former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash, of CNN's Open Court.

"It seems the only way to slow the serves down is to limit the size of players, cut some of their arms off, or make them stand in a hole."

But there may be an alternative. In 2002, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) included a new, larger tennis ball in its official rules.

While its primary purpose is for recreational players and use at high altitude, the Type 3 ball is also intended to "help curb where necessary the dominance of the serve and corresponding lack of rallies in the professional game."

The graphic above demonstrates how. The 6% increase in diameter means the ball travels more slowly due to greater drag, and also bounces higher. Put simply, it makes the game easier.

I am not going into the balls again with Tenez, the radar gun certainly doesn't reflect a decrease in speed. The fact of the matter is that the changes to the ball and the court took place all before Fed's epic grandslam run. So again the biggest beneficiary of the slow courts is Roger Federer. I think it is clear that until fed gets number 7, which I still think he will get that at least in my mind Pete is still the greatest grass courter of all time. Roger may surpass him yet or at least equal him. Just interested to know Tenez in your mind does Nadal's 6 RGs make him the greatest clay courter of all time?

Just interested to know Tenez in your mind does Nadal's 6 RGs make him the greatest clay courter of all time?.
------------------------------

He is the fittest of all time and that makes him the best on clay over 5 sets. But I would lie to myself if I considered his game the best on clay of all time. I have seen a few players able to produce a better clay game than Nadal....unfortunately not many can sustain it for 3 sets against him. I am sure guys like Djoko and Delpo could. Unfortunately we will have to wait a bit longer to find out.

The fact of the matter is that the changes to the ball and the court took place all before Fed's epic grandslam run. So again the biggest beneficiary of the slow courts is Roger Federer.
-------------------------------

Completely wrong again. Faster conds would likely have seen Federer win 7 wimbledon in a row. There is clear evidence that the conds slowed down again from 2003 to now.

After all this discussion we know that Fed was able to beat the best on fast grass...and it;s clear that Federer has the best eye/hand coordination out there and therefore would have benefited from faster courts.

ESPN Classic happened to show extended highlights of the Federer v Sampras 2001 match on Saturday.

A few things:
1 - it was a terrifically close match and both players produced some extremely good tennis. Federer's backhand service return actually looked better then than it does now.

2- The courts appeared faster and lower bouncing than is the case now, although not as fast as in the Becker-Edberg era. Even Federer was routinely serve and volleying on his first serve.

3 - Sampras was still a very talented tennis player, even if he was a little past his peak. He may not have been the most elegant mover around the court, but he was an extremely effective and powerful athlete (his pace forwards and back in the court and his vertical leap to play overheads were both exceptional).

So, to take the question of whether Sampras is the greatest, I think you can make a very good case at least on grass (only really Federer and Borg have comparable records, and Sampras was the player who dominated when the specialisation to grass courts was highest), and he was an extremely good hard court player (although Federer has a better USO record, as arguably does Lendl - it is easier to make this comparison because the USO playing conditions are probably the least changed over the last 20 or so years).

He should have been more successful on clay than he was, as he was a very solid back court player as well as a great serve-volleyer, but perhaps either didn't like playing in those conditions or decided to conserve his resources for the grass and hard court periods through the summer.

dummy_half wrote:ESPN Classic happened to show extended highlights of the Federer v Sampras 2001 match on Saturday.

A few things:
1 - it was a terrifically close match and both players produced some extremely good tennis. Federer's backhand service return actually looked better then than it does now

Had the conds had remained quick as 2001 with a low bounce Federer may have gone down as the best SHBH ever. When the bounce is low, it simply a genius shot.

Sampras is not a good hard court player, he is a great hard court player. How is Federer and arguably Lendl's record better there? Sampras won 5 USO you know that?.

When the bounce is low his SHB is not even better than Wawrinka or Gasquet's to even start with. And why must the bounce be low? Should every player demand conditions tailor made for their game?

S_A
Federer has as many USO wins, but in consecutive years. Also, I think he's still a good bet to add another title there in the next 2 years.

Lydian put up a list of Lendl's results on HC last week some time. Suffice to say it was extraordinary - was it 8 USO finals in a row?